waxseal.approval.create

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the token encodes action, context, expiry, is signed, and requires a private key. However, it does not detail error conditions (e.g., invalid key) or output format. Overall, good transparency for a simple crypto token creation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, each essential: purpose, encoding details, and usage workflow. It is front-loaded with the main goal and avoids fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given simple invocation (3 params, no output schema), the description covers creation, usage, and prerequisite. It lacks explicit mention of the output type (e.g., string token) and error scenarios. However, it is largely complete for an agent to understand usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces the parameter purposes (e.g., action as description) but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema, which already has clear examples. No extra value beyond confirmation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool creates a signed approval token proving human authorization for an AI agent action. It distinguishes from siblings like waxseal.approval.verify by explaining the workflow (pass token to agent, which verifies). The verb 'create' and resource 'approval token' are specific.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains when to use: when a human needs to authorize an AI agent action. It mentions the workflow (pass token to agent) and a prerequisite (requires WAXSEAL_PRIVATE_KEY_PEM). It does not explicitly state when not to use, but sibling differentiation is clear from the workflow mention.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.